Odd interference call

[slapperdad]

R1 at first. Ball is hit to the F4 R1 is running at F4 and slows to avoid running into her. F4 fields the ball and tags her, then throws to F3 but the throw is not in time to get B/R going to first.

Now this is three man ASA. 3rd base BU calls R1 out on the tag. 1st base BU then calls interference on R1 AND calls the B/R out at 1. They get togetehr to talk about it, and their conclusion is, had there not been any interference, they would have gotten the double play. I'm not going to argue the interference, unfortunately I think the 1st base BU was the only one in the park who saw it. My question is can someone give me the ASA rule that provides that that the B/R can be called out going to one on interference on R1.

TIA.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Rule 8-J-1 or 8-J-2 ( HTBT ) Effect : If this interference , in the Umpires judgement is an attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate trailing runner shall be called out.

[Comp]

8-7-J Effect If this interference, in the umpires judgement is an attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the runner is put out, the immediate trailing runner shall also be called out.

[slapperdad]

Thanks.

[MTR]

R1 at first. Ball is hit to the F4 R1 is running at F4 and slows to avoid running into her. F4 fields the ball and tags her, then throws to F3 but the throw is not in time to get B/R going to first.

Now this is three man ASA. 3rd base BU calls R1 out on the tag. 1st base BU then calls interference on R1 AND calls the B/R out at 1. They get togetehr to talk about it, and their conclusion is, had there not been any interference, they would have gotten the double play. I'm not going to argue the interference, unfortunately I think the 1st base BU was the only one in the park who saw it.

I might have protested that call just to find out what he saw or thought he saw that justified an INT call.

[tcannizzo]

R1 at first. Ball is hit to the F4 R1 is running at F4 and slows to avoid running into her. F4 fields the ball and tags her, then throws to F3 but the throw is not in time to get B/R going to first.

Now this is three man ASA. 3rd base BU calls R1 out on the tag. 1st base BU then calls interference on R1 AND calls the B/R out at 1. They get togetehr to talk about it, and their conclusion is, had there not been any interference, they would have gotten the double play. I'm not going to argue the interference, unfortunately I think the 1st base BU was the only one in the park who saw it.

I might have protested that call just to find out what he saw or thought he saw that justified an INT call.

Ditto - where was INT?

[GIMNEPIWO]

R1 at first. Ball is hit to the F4 R1 is running at F4 and slows to avoid running into her. F4 fields the ball and tags her, then throws to F3 but the throw is not in time to get B/R going to first.

Now this is three man ASA. 3rd base BU calls R1 out on the tag. 1st base BU then calls interference on R1 AND calls the B/R out at 1. They get togetehr to talk about it, and their conclusion is, had there not been any interference, they would have gotten the double play. I'm not going to argue the interference, unfortunately I think the 1st base BU was the only one in the park who saw it.

I might have protested that call just to find out what he saw or thought he saw that justified an INT call.

Ditto - where was INT?

In my judgement blaa blaa blaa ....

[tcannizzo]

R1 at first. Ball is hit to the F4 R1 is running at F4 and slows to avoid running into her. F4 fields the ball and tags her, then throws to F3 but the throw is not in time to get B/R going to first.

Now this is three man ASA. 3rd base BU calls R1 out on the tag. 1st base BU then calls interference on R1 AND calls the B/R out at 1. They get togetehr to talk about it, and their conclusion is, had there not been any interference, they would have gotten the double play. I'm not going to argue the interference, unfortunately I think the 1st base BU was the only one in the park who saw it.

I might have protested that call just to find out what he saw or thought he saw that justified an INT call.

Ditto - where was INT?

In my judgement blaa blaa blaa ....

Right but not in the OP.

[MTR]

In my judgement blaa blaa blaa ....

Yes, but then the umpire needs to offer the act he witnessed to call the INT and there is where you may get the misinterpretation needed to support the protest.

At least, you get to know what it was.

[slapperdad]

At this stage of the game it was moot to do anything. In Bob Knight's words, relax and enjoy it.

I'm not sure the guy could have made a credible argument for interference no matter how he worded it. It was a clean tag, no hanky panky, the throw just wasn't in time. The 2 BU's did get together and talk. I just think he was a young inexperienced umpire, hopefully he learns from it.